The story I've been reading is that this sum included at least one charge to a high-end baby shop for nearly $300. As far as whether the wardrobe was "necessary" to the tune of $150,000, you can string people along so far, but who on earth thinks it's "necessary" to spend nearly $300 on high-end baby stuff for Trig? He's six months old, people. He has four older siblings. Memo to the campaign: ordinary Americans would tell you to just dress him in castoff t-shirts until he's a year old. Ordinary Americans know that baby won't fit his $300 outfit a month from now. Ordinary Americans think that any family with five kids has to have at least a few hand-me-down baby things that would do just fine.

As far as whether it really takes $150,000 to get Sarah Palin to look the part, let's do this the easy way: just ask Tina Fey how much the outfit, hair, makeup and glasses cost.

I read the original NYT piece, clear through to the end, expecting to find ANY discussion of how prenatal influences might ultimately affect later political views. I have to agree with Rossmeier's take -- after a lengthy and well-written piece about how prenatal conditions have been found to influence some types of behavior, the author never even attempted to tie political beliefs with any prenatal conditions. She also seemed to conclude -- without any particular factual basis that I could find -- that Republicans are a different personality type than Democrats. Even though I'm a Democrat, I thought this was really flawed reasoning. I can think of many factors that might account for peoples' political affiliation (income? education? geography? family background? race?), none of which will ever correlate with personality type, which might in turn have correlated with maternal obesity. And, none of these possible correlations was really supported by the studies cited in the article.

McCain's refusal to invoke Rev. Wright did not arise out of out of some sense of decency and nobility. He placed that issue off-limits to the campaign because he himself was vulnerable on wacky-cleric nonsense and knew the issue would backfire on him.

McCain was always a weak candidate, but he was the best they could come up with. The problem wasn't so much with the candidate, it was the party itself. Intolerance and vitriol only carried them through so many electoral cycles. They came to a tipping point, when the loyalty to the radical base was costing them credibility with the rest of the entire universe. They chose their base.

I'm not so concerned with the Democrats being in charge of both Executive and Legislative branches, because unlike Republicans, Democrats are capable of disagreeing with one another; the checks and balances are inherent. Republicans ALWAYS voted with Bush and NEVER criticized a fellow-Republican. Bush NEVER listened to a dissenting opinion. Bush NEVER took questions from an audience with diverse viewpoints. Bush and his handlers always controlled the setting, the audience, and the backdrop in public; they manipulated information presented to Congress and the public; and they worked equally hard to control the information presented to Presidential advisors in private. Bush deliberately set about to destroy the public credibility and career of anybody who spoke out in dissent. That kind of party unity is nice while it lasts, but it didn't lead to a particularly effective deliberative process.

On the other hand, as "undisciplined" as the Democrats may appear in comparison, there has always been public debate within the party itself. There will be a "moderate" faction of Democrats and a "liberal" faction, and possibly one or two other divisions -- socially progressive, fiscally conservative, some more concerned with the environment, others with job creation -- these divisions may have been the weakness of the Democrats one time, but they can also be seen as strengths. Democrats won't have the party unity needed to pass any particularly radical agenda, but that's actually a good thing -- it means greater consensus instead of the lockstep party discipline the Republicans were able to maintain.

It wasn't McCain's candidacy that brought the Republican party to this point.

I may be whistling past the graveyard here, but I'm guessing that the youth vote will turn up on election day, one way or another. They managed to show up at primaries and caucuses in record numbers, and they've been showing up at rallies ever since (including at the convention). I'd be willing to bet the early voting demographic is comprised of more experienced voters, that's all.

Weren't we supposed to get Palin's medical records, some time around the middle of this week? So have we all forgotten? It's Friday afternoon -- the middle of the week is over.

Ever since Gore left politics, he's had more of an impact on policy and public awareness of the immediacy of global warming, than he could ever possibly have had as President. I can't imagine why he would ever want to be doing anything other than exactly what he's doing today.